“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
“Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ error, this case does not warrant this Court’s review.”
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
“Learn something new every day,” is a well-worn adage.
And it’s mostly true (I only question giving a literal meaning to the “every day” part).
Nevertheless, I’m embarrassed to acknowledge learning only recently of the existence of a noteworthy, bankruptcy-related statute: 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). Such statute reads in part (emphasis added):
Excluded from Subchapter V eligibility is a “single asset real estate” debtor.
We have a recent opinion on a Subchapter V debtor who beats that exclusion: In re Evergreen Site Holdings, Inc., [Fn. 1]
What follows is a summary of that opinion.
Eligibility Issue & Standards
The Evergreen issue is this:
In a mass-tort bankruptcy, when 95% of 120,000 creditors vote to accept a mediated plan paying over $7 billion to creditors, shouldn’t the plan be confirmed?
In a challenging economic climate, we usually see an increase in leases ending prematurely, either by agreement or by landlords irritating (forfeiting) the lease when they are faced with an insolvent tenant or bad payers. Tenants in these circumstances will often leave behind goods and equipment. The temptation for landlords is just to throw the stuff away so they can re-let but there are restrictions on what a landlord can and can't do with abandoned goods in Scotland.
What should you do if a tenant leaves goods behind at the premises (tenant not insolvent)?
Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.
Case Law Consensus
Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:
- business assets are fully-liquidated;
- unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
- prospects for resuming such activities are nil.
So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?
I say, “No.”
A Hypothetical